JURISDICTIONS

Under United States constitutional provisions, the states have primary legal responsibility for wildlife protection and administration, both through their administration of the well-established and recognized doctrine of public ownership of wildlife, and through police power. Neither of these functions was transferred to the federal government at the time the federal constitution was adopted; hence they remain with the states. The Constitution does, however, reserve to the federal government specific functions such as treaty-making and the regulation of interstate commerce. Both have frequently been applied for wildlife conservation purposes. These actions sometimes limit state jurisdiction in ways that affect the management of areas that are of national significance.

STATE RESPONSIBILITIES

Early assumption by the states of wildlife administration as a trust of the people was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1896 in the widely quoted case of Geer vs. Connecticut. This decision probably was influential both in the establishment in every state of a governmental unit to handle wildlife affairs, and in passage of a large and complex body of state laws or regulations.

The doctrine of “state” (public) ownership of wildlife is attributed to English common law. Now, however, in England and other western European countries the landowner has property rights in the wildlife of his land and hence, by contrast with the American scene, laws and regulations dealing with wildlife are few and simple. Responsibilities of the landowner are far greater than in America, and the functions of government are correspondingly less. As a result, Europeans have not developed such well-established units of the government concerned with wildlife (Sigler, 1956).

Although state responsibility for wildlife is widely recognized, in most states wildlife and its recreational use are subordinate to other resource interests. In many states, for example, wildlife production has not been recognized as a beneficial use of land or water, so that when conflicts arise between this and other uses, wildlife frequently receives little consideration. A major example is the administration of water law in western states (discussed later in this chapter), but others occur. The reason may well be that wildlife values are to a great extent social values, being recreational and esthetic, and are not readily measured in conventional economic terms. Although the situation is changing for the better, as wildlife values receive growing recognition year by year, in certain kinds of competition the position of wildlife is still predictably weak. When a highway is proposed along a trout stream, it is still normal for most engineers to be unconcerned about the welfare of fish. Seldom is the right of eminent domain used by either the state or federal government in obtaining a wildlife area. The Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that only about two percent of its refuge land purchases are by condemnation.

State jurisdiction relates primarily to the control of wildlife and to the manner in which hunters and fishermen may utilize the resource—not to the habitat upon which wildlife production is dependent. The landowner holds the key to production through his control of the habitat, and thus he needs to be a partner in management if the resource is to yield public benefits.

STATE CONTROL OF GAME AND FISH HARVEST

In many states the legislature has delegated to an executive or to the game and fish commission the authority to control hunting and fishing and associated activities through regulations having the effect of law. In any event, laws or regulations tend to be voluminous and complex, designed to serve many purposes. Most important are those to protect fish and wildlife resources, to provide the private landowner with protection, to provide an orderly harvest, to distribute hunting and fishing opportunity as widely as possible, and to produce the income needed for operating the wildlife department. Laws and regulations are very important management tools.

There are, however, other recognized purposes served by state wildlife laws and regulations. Some are designed to facilitate enforcement, such as those requiring the use of tags on various legally taken game and fish. Others designate fish and wildlife as recreational rather than commercial resources, including many that prohibit the sale of game, alive or dead. Still others are intended to promote gun safety; these may require training programs in gun handling, particularly by the young license-buyer, or they may cancel the license of any who have had gun accidents while hunting.

One group of laws or regulations simply discriminates between different segments of the public. Common among these are the regulations that charge nonresidents a higher license fee than residents, and those that grant privileges to certain groups. Many states, for example, permit elderly persons to fish without a license, and many permit landowners to hunt or fish on their own property without a license. A few grant nonresident members of the military services, or college students, the privilege of purchasing a resident license instead of the more expensive out-of-state permit.

Laws designed to protect the fish and wildlife resource are among the most important. Examples include those designating completely closed seasons, prohibitions against hunting and fishing during the breeding period, and establishing certain types of refuges.

Of particular importance to agriculturists are regulations designed to protect them against hunters and fishermen who may abuse the privilege of being a guest on another person's land. Some of these merit more detailed discussion, but the most significant ones, included in the game and fish laws or regulations of many states, embody provisions for posting lands against all trespass if the landowner prefers; for requiring permission of the landowner to hunt; for providing “safety zones” around occupied residential and farm buildings; for limiting the owner's liability in case of accident on his property. Still other laws permit the landowner to safeguard his property from damage by protected wildlife or provide for reimbursement of the landowner for crop damage.

Among the regulations designed to distribute hunting and fishing opportunities as widely as possible are those that establish bag limits and season limits or that limit the types of hunting and fishing by placing emphasis on recreation rather than on the amount of meat to be taken. In this category would be the prohibition against live decoys and baiting, and some of the limitations upon firearms.

Legislative delegation of authority over game and fish regulations to the state administrative agency is in general an effective form of management. It provides flexibility whereby changes can be made from year to year to meet new conditions or as need arises. The extent of such authority varies from the situation in Missouri, where it is vested in the Conservation Commission by the state constitution, to the situation, at the opposite extreme, wherein year-to-year regulations are originated by a committee and passed by the legislature.

The practice of “legislative management,” which deliberately withholds from the commission discretionary powers to make regulations, is most likely to be invoked where measures favored by state technical personnel are not favored by vocal segments of the general public. Thus, appeals are made to representatives in the legislature, who are more likely to be swayed by public sentiment than by the findings and opinions of state wildlife biologists.

Under these circumstances bounties, game farms, and fish hatcheries continued to absorb a disproportionate share of state fish and game budgets long after scientific research had shown good reason for reducing or eliminating them. Handling game regulations through political and legislative channels has had its most important land-use effect in some northern and western states by keeping the controversial buck law in force and thus preventing the adequate harvest of deer herds—a situation that still exists in some states. Overpopulation of deer is likely to occur through the extensive range improvement of large timber cuttings or through fires, and by the elimination of predation as an important mortality factor. In the absence of a heavy hunting harvest, which can be accomplished only by taking both sexes, herds multiply exponentially and quickly damage their ranges.

Experience has shown that, after a developmental phase featuring “legislative management,” range deterioration, and at least local decline in numbers of deer, public understanding may begin to catch up. Partial authority over regulations is then granted to administrators, as political demands slack off and informed groups of sportsmen give support to a scientifically guided program. Eventually, experience convincingly demonstrates to a controlling majority of the public and legislators that the technical agency can be trusted to handle this technical matter.

In decades past, developments of this kind have produced management difficulties and state-federal disagreements, especially on national forests. However, the controversies tend to localize and subside as information spreads and trained people take over higher administrative positions.

PUBLIC ACCESS TO PRIVATE LANDS AND WATERS

Cultivated lands are potentially the most productive of wildlife as well as of field crops, and a major proportion of the game in the United States is taken from them. The most popular species include the pheasant, quail, rabbits, squirrels, doves, and to some extent waterfowl and even deer.

In much of the United States a tradition of free public hunting on private lands is recognized by both landowner and hunter. Customs vary in different parts of the country, but the farmer is often the unwilling host to hunters who enter his land as though it were their right without the formality of asking permission. In a remarkably high proportion of cases this traditional relationship is accepted philosophically by the landowner. With increasing numbers of urban hunters, there has been a growing tendency to abuse the farmer's hospitality. State fish and game departments are appropriately concerned and invoke whatever means they can to improve landowner-sportsman relations.

Some of this effort, unfortunately, is a kind of holding action designed to maintain a relationship that is not actually appropriate under modern conditions. Today's farmer is a businessman in a competitive, highly capitalized, and mechanized industry, which is much more specialized than it was 50 years ago. At the turn of the century a typical farm included a flock of poultry, a herd of dairy cows, an orchard, some acres of feed grain, some swine, and a garden to produce vegetables for home consumption. But the general farm has largely given way to specialized monoculture, which produces much less wildlife. These changes in farming conditions and those associated with an increasing urban population, have been unfavorable to both ecological and social relationships for the sportsman seeking recreation on private land.

It is clear, however, that with appropriate encouragement, public recreation on private farms can continue at an important level. Teague (1966) has brought this out forcefully in an analysis of the conflicts and the mutuality of interests.

DEVICES FOR LIMITING THE NUMBER OF HUNTERS

Limiting the number of hunters on an area is important both to restrict the actual take of wildlife and to satisfy landowners who have permitted public hunting on their property. Specific studies of the matter have shown that property owners are very uneasy lest they be overrun by too many hunters. A variety of methods have been tried for limiting the number. We are concerned here primarily with those serving the interests of the landowner rather than those designed specifically for limiting the kill.

The most common arrangement is undoubtedly one under which the owner leases exclusive privileges to a group of hunters, the number being explicitly limited. The agreement usually calls for the burden of controlling the land to be assumed by the hunters themselves, so that the automobiles be left in particular parking areas where space is deliberately limited. Reports indicate that this has worked effectively.

The Province of Ontario uses a plan in the immediate proximity of large cities under which the counties require a special license issued in limited number. Methods of limiting numbers and controlling distribution of hunters have been discussed by Johnson (1943), Scott (1948), Hunter (1957), and Dimmick and Klimstra (1964).

BIG GAME HUNTING REGULATIONS

Game laws or regulations designed to accomplish an appropriate level of harvest have been developed, with many variations. Western states have pioneered in the use of effective big game hunting regulations, because public acceptance has generally been quicker there than in many of the eastern states.

As noted previously, a particularly troublesome big game hunting regulation has been the buck law, restricting hunters to deer carrying antlers of a specific size. The protection of antlerless or female big game was often justified when the population was small and the habitat in good condition. Then the objective of wildlife administrators was to permit a limited amount of hunting, but to encourage continued growth of the big game herds. The devotion of the public to the bucklaw idea became so complete that when the deer population had reached a level at which it should be stabilized and kept in balance with the available forage, people frequently were unwilling to change their views. Many states in the East and Midwest, notably New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, witnessed long and bitter controversies before the general public, including many legislators and game commissioners, was willing to accept the idea that the time had come for a larger kill, requiring the taking of antlerless deer or elk. The western states, in general, have been spared this excessively bitter type of controversy, but in California the problem is so severe that many deer ranges are still overpopulated. It is noteworthy that states that have never employed the buck law, for example, Minnesota and Maine, have generally fewer big game problems and have a better balance between the deer herd and its food and cover plants than states that have used this device.

One of the commonest arrangements that the states have used to limit the number of hunters and distribute them appropriately is that of issuing a specified number of permits for a particular area. If demand for the permits is beyond the specified number, a public lottery is held to select the successful permittees. This device has been used, particularly in the West, for almost all species of big game, including bison in those few states with a surplus to be taken by hunters. In 1967, for example, Colorado issued only three permits for shooting bison, at a charge of $200 per hunter.

Holding drawings to select hunting permittees has been used most commonly for species that are limited in numbers like mountain goats, bighorn, and pronghorn. However, where it has been necessary to limit the kill in a specific region, the permit system has also been used for the commoner deer and elk. This is an effective device for directing hunting pressure where it should be, and gearing it to the population surplus. For the purpose of distributing big game hunting pressure, many states are divided into a large number of units. Colorado, for example, has 95 game management units, any of which may have different hunting regulations from adjoining divisions, which commonly represent watersheds.

In many cases the wildlife administrator has found it desirable to encourage more hunting pressure in certain portions of his state, sometimes because a given area is relatively remote or inaccessible, and tends therefore to be bypassed in favor of easier hunting grounds by most hunters. Several means have been used to encourage heavier hunting. In Colorado the west slope of the Rockies tends to be less heavily hunted in relation to game population density than the east slope, which is nearer the larger cities. In some years hunting regulations have called for opening the season on the west slope a week or two earlier than in the east, thus attracting the opening-day pressure to the area where it is needed. For the same purpose the purchase of multiple licenses by a single hunter is permitted in Colorado's less accessible back country. Other states sometimes provide an incentive in lightly hunted areas by allowing gunners to take one or more animals beyond the normal limit—often this is a “camp deer” or “party deer” of either sex. Where a buck law has been in effect, simply opening the season to an “any deer” type of hunt will bring about a far higher kill than is possible under sex and age restrictions.

Under some conditions an any-deer season results in an excessive kill—which means that the herd falls below the level that can produce the most while conserving browse resources. Indiana had this experience when an easily accessible range was opened to liberalized hunting. Restricted hunting probably is needed in the semiagricultural regions of most states where road networks and the nature of the woodland permit heavy hunting to eliminate a high proportion of the deer. Under these conditions the states frequently issue a limited number of permits for taking antlerless animals—deer or elk, as the case may be. This practice has resulted in a more orderly hunt than can be achieved, for example, by setting a brief season of a day or two on antlerless deer at the end of the regular buck-hunting season.

From the large number of different regulatory devices developed by the states for adjusting hunting pressure in specific areas, it is clear that no one arrangement is always satisfactory, and undoubtedly more variations will be developed in years to come. It is characteristic that American big game hunters prefer a minimum of regimentation and would oppose the tight restrictions frequently applied in European big game hunts.

LEGISLATION CONCERNING PREDATORS AND NUISANCE ANIMALS

As described by Leopold (1933), predator control was chronologically second only to hunting restrictions in its development as a wildlife management measure, and also in its general popularity and adoption years ago. In North America several of the colonies established bounties for the destruction of wolves in the seventeenth century (Massachusetts by 1630, New Hampshire by 1679, and Pennsylvania by 1683). The objective of predator control was primarily the protection of domestic stock. However, the belief (very often a myth) that predation was a limiting factor on wildlife populations, and therefore an important one to control, has been widespread, and even today has many adherents.

FUNDING OF WILDLIFE ADMINISTRATION

In most states the income that meets the costs of managing fish and wildlife resources comes mainly from sales of hunting and fishing licenses. In addition, the states receive federal aid under the Pittman-Robertson Act of 1937 for wildlife restoration and the Dingell-Johnson Act of 1950 for sport fishery restoration and management. In some states the fines from convicted violators of the fish and game laws also are used to support the fish and game department.

The tradition of providing financial support for administering the fish and wildlife resource entirely from hunting and fishing licenses is well established. It was a provision of the federal aid acts that, to qualify for benefits, a state must formally earmark hunting and fishing license income for the use of its fish and game administration.

This earmarking of funds under the principle that “the user pays” has been applied to some extent on the federal level also, under the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act of 1934 and the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965. The former act was intended to raise funds for land acquisition and development and maintenance of a system of national waterfowl refuges, and the latter applies to outdoor recreation broadly, with primary objectives of encouraging long-range planning for outdoor recreation, and land and water acquisition for the same purpose.

It is now being increasingly recognized, at state levels as well as federal, that the social values of fish and wildlife are so great and so diverse that it is neither appropriate nor adequate to finance the management of this resource entirely from license holders, who comprise a small minority of the public. A few states have recognized this, and are now supplementing hunting and fishing license income with general tax revenue in order to provide more adequate support for conservation programs. The California Fish and Wildlife Plan of 1966 estimates that between 1965 and 1980 the cost of maintaining today's program in the Department of Fish and Game will total approximately $8.2 million, while new license buyers will provide only $4.2 million. It is recommended that current sources of income be augmented with general fund revenues to supply the deficit. In New York State this same situation was recognized in 1968 when the legislature provided from general revenue approximately one third of the budget of the Fish and Game Division.

The conclusion seems clear that earmarked funds, particularly from hunting and fishing licenses, will not be sufficient in the future to meet the costs of managing the fish and wildlife resource for the people at large.

WATER LAW IN RELATION TO FISH AND WILDLIFE

Water laws vary considerably from state to state and are exceedingly important in the management of fish and wildlife. The legal status of surface water is drastically different between the 17 western states (Dakotas to Texas and westward), where the doctrine of prior appro priation applies, and the eastern states, which employ variations of the riparian doctrine.

In its simplest form, the riparian doctrine permits any use by riparian landowners that returns the water to its streambed “undiminished in quantity or quality”. This may be possible for certain nonconsumptive uses, such as waterwheels and fisheries. The opposite extreme is represented in western states, where frequently the entire flow of a stream is appropriated and used, leaving nothing whatever for fish habitat or recreational activities. Under this doctrine it is not unusual for a river to be completely “turned off” for a period of weeks or months.

Three features of the appropriation doctrine are in sharp conflict with fish and wildlife interests: (1) Water is legally appropriated to be diverted from its natural course; (2) most states allow the appropriation of all the water from a stream; and (3) fish and wildlife are not ordinarily recognized as a “beneficial use” or, if so, it is so subordinate to such uses as irrigation that the legal recognition is meaningless.

The subject of water law has been under scrutiny in all the contiguous 48 states because of conflicting demands for water and its increasing importance. Many changes have been made and are being considered. Among numerous publications on water law, several have been found particularly relevant, and they are the basis for this review. Water law in general or in relation to agricultural use has been treated by Williams (1950), Busby (1955), the University of Michigan (1955), Black (1960), Harding (1960), and Johnson (1965). The specific area of water law in the western states in relation to fish and wildlife has been reviewed by Denman (1957), Gordon (1958), Voigt (1958), Binford (1959), Lynch (1959), and Whitney (1964).

In 31 eastern states, where water is more plentiful, its relationships generally are outside the scope of this treatment. The questions of water pollution and its legal control, and of accelerated eutrophication of waters, have been treated in other reviews. The 17 western states, therefore, deserve particular attention here.

These western states have water laws based upon the appropriative doctrine, “first in time, first in right.” Nine of the states included a basic water law in their constitutions, beginning with Texas in 1845 and ending with New Mexico in 1912. The other eight have statutory water law, beginning with Oregon in 1859.

Though the doctrine has been recently slightly modified in the coastal states of Washington, Oregon, and California, the basic doctrine is inimical to fish and wildlife because it assumes that appropriated water must be diverted from its natural bed, and there is no provision requiring a minimum flow. Fish and wildlife thus have no legal right to water. In dry years the water in a stream may be far over-appropriated, so that the owners of first water rights may use the entire flow for irrigation, municipal, or industrial purposes, whether or not it is used efficiently, and later appropriators (and fish and wildlife interests) have none.

It is a provision of the doctrine that appropriative rights go with the land, not the landowner, but even this feature cannot be exploited in the interest of fish and wildlife, as illustrated by the experience of the Arizona Department of Game and Fish. The Department purchased submarginal lands for the purpose of securing the water rights that went with them, but the water was to be left in its natural course as habitat for fish and game. The courts, however, ruled that since there was no active diversion of the water, the appropriative rights were invalid (Binford, 1959).

Binford also cites cases in Montana in which it was proposed to divert water from the streambed to fish-rearing ponds. This too was ruled invalid by the court because, in the conflict between irrigation and fish, the fish have lower priority. In several states efforts have been made to pass legislation that would classify fish and wildlife uses as beneficial, but these were opposed successfully by agricultural interests.

Increasing demands for recreation have resulted in some states recognizing the recreational values of water, and amendments to the original appropriative doctrine have been passed by the legislatures of the three west coast states. Each of these now has laws that provide for minimum flows in streams for preservation of fish and wildlife. Denman (1957) describes how the Oregon Game Commission, in testing the recent State Water Resources Act, requested a minimum flow of 200 cfs in the Deschutes River below the Wickiup Dam. Although granted only 20 cfs, the Commission established the important precedent of a minimum stream flow for fish and game in a western state.

In a 1957 amendment, California water law classified fish and game as beneficial users, on an equal basis with other users, and Gordon (1958) describes numerous water rights held by the Department of Fish and Game for fish hatcheries and rearing ponds, and for waterfowl management areas.

Missouri's water law requires State Conservation Department review and approval before any obstruction is built in a watercourse. If passage of fish is blocked, the department may require that either a hatchery or a fish ladder be constructed. This law has also been used as a basis for negotiating a minimum waterflow over or through a dam.

Washington's water law also places fish and wildlife on an equal basis with other beneficial users, and provides further that streambeds may not be disturbed by construction projects without consultation with, and consent of, the director of fisheries and the director of game (Binford, 1959). Pertinent sections of the amended water law of Washington are worth quoting since they are in such sharp contrast with most other western states:

75.20.050. It is hereby declared to be the policy of this state that a flow of water sufficient to support game fish and food fish populations be maintained at all times in streams of this state.

75.20.060. Every dam or other obstruction across or in any stream shall be provided with a durable and efficient fishway . . . as the director may approve. . . .

75.20.100. In the event that any person or government agency desires to construct any form of hydraulic project that will lower, divert, obstruct or change the natural flow or bed of any river . . . , such person or government agency shall submit . . . plans and specifications of the proposed construction . . . and shall secure the written approval of director of fisheries and director of game. . . .

Particularly important is Montana's Stream Preservation Act of 1964, described by Whitney (1964). Its provisions are similar to the last section of Washington's water law in that it protects watercourses from damage by such construction projects as highways. The act requires that the Montana Department of Game and Fish be notified 60 days prior to the construction of any project that might damage a watercourse.

The Department thus has the opportunity to recommend alternatives to prevent or mitigate the damage. The act has reportedly been highly successful in protecting fishery resources, but a serious weakness is that it applies only to other state agencies, not to federal or private construction.

It is clear that among the very important legislative problems in the fish and wildlife field are those relating to water, and to the preservation of streams from unnecessary damage.

THE TAX DEDUCTION INFLUENCE IN RESOURCE USE

In major decisions affecting resource management, the people act through their government by means of available political machinery. The members of Congress give support and direction to a cause as they are influenced by its proponents. They may withhold such sanction when opponent forces state their case effectively. It is inherent in our legislative process that the will of the public usually is served and that it is made known through hearings and other representations of citizens.

An acknowledged feature of this system is the right of entrepreneurs in every economic field to promote legislation favorable to their business interests. Such activities are an allowable business expense under provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. These regulations apply to the users and developers of natural resources and have long governed our public management of land and water.

Somewhat different concepts apply to the activities of citizens who attempt to affect resource decisions for reasons other than profit (see Borod, 1968). When they incorporate in conservation organizations for purposes they conceive to be in the public interest, their contributions to the organization (if eligible) are tax deductible. However, the Internal Revenue Code prohibits the use of any substantial part of that income for influencing legislation. A case of this kind came to national attention when The Sierra Club lost its tax-deductible status in 1966 for advertising in leading newspapers as part of its campaign to prevent the construction of dams in the Grand Canyon. In the year following, the club reported the loss of $125,000 in gifts (San Francisco Chronicle, March 14, 1968).

In discussing this situation, Patterson (1967) pointed out that the interests who stand to gain by certain decisions commonly have ample funds to pursue their cause, while those speaking for the general public do not. He noted that “The final irony is that the law protects itself; they cannot fight to have it changed.”

Especially among the larger, more responsible, conservation organizations of the nation, there is a growing feeling that they should have similar financial privileges in working for or against legislation as their counterparts in labor and industry have.

GROWING EMPHASIS ON HABITAT

Much of the legislation discussed here has had the effect of putting a restraint on the users of fish and wildlife, and this effect will always be important. However, there have been many state laws and acts of Congress dealing with problems of environment essential to wildlife. The aim may be habitat preservation or rehabilitation, or in some cases the development of entirely new habitats. Unfortunately, destructive forces continue to increase also, as a consequence of population growth, technological developments, and social demands, so this preoccupation with habitat is well justified.

Some of the significant federal acts have been mentioned in other connections. Thus, the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 is legal authority for the system of National Wildlife Refuges, and the Federal Aid Acts (Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson) of 1937 and 1950 provided that the States might use funds from these sources for the development of habitat. Public Law 83-566, the Small Watersheds Act, though enacted primarily for flood control purposes, included provisions for creation of fish and wildlife habitat. The Federal Water Quality Act of 1965, as amended, will have exceedingly important beneficial effects upon water quality for fish in particular, because the standards it imposes are in so many cases higher than those that the states were employing. The Agricultural Conservation Program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, effective in 1936, has encouraged wildlife habitat developments on farms and ranches through federal cost sharing and has resulted in the building of many thousands of farm and ranch ponds. The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 provides still another source of funds that are being used in part for creation of new ponds and lakes for recreational use. Others are less direct, but still constructive, in their influence upon habitat restoration, preservation, or development, but in the aggregate they demonstrate an increasing ecologic awareness on the part of the American public.

THE FUTURE

The technologies of agriculture and of fish and wildlife management have developed so rapidly in recent decades that in most situations they are far ahead of what we can apply. Legislation and administration have lagged far behind, so that there are many examples of unresolved conflicts of interest, duplications of effort, lack of coordination or cooperation, and overlapping jurisdiction involving fisheries, wildlife, agriculture, and other land uses. The challenge of the future will be to develop legislation and patterns of administration that will make it possible to cooperate and focus a coordinated effort, giving full consideration to the many interests that are involved.

A rare opportunity to improve legislation is available to the Public Land Law Review Commission and the Congress, for the Commission was required to submit its recommendations by June 30, 1970. The recommendations were developed from a series of some 30 comprehensive studies conducted during the past 5 years. If and when adopted by the Congress and the public land managing agencies, these recommendations can have a tremendous influence on future conservation programs directly affecting approximately a third of the land area of the United States.

REFERENCES

• Allen, D. L. 1962. Our wildlife legacy. Funk & Wagnalls Co. 422 p.
• Anonymous. 1967. Blackbird depredation in agriculture. Agr. Sci. Rev., Second Quart., 15-22.
• Berryman, J. C. 1961. The responsibility of state agencies in managing hunting on private lands. 26th N. Amer. Wildl. Conf. Trans. p.285-292.
• Binford, L. C. 1959. Western water law and policy as it relates to fish and wildlife resources. Western Ass. State Fish & Game Comm., 39th Annu. Conf. Proc. p.41-55.
• Black, P. E. 1960. Colorado water law. Coop. Watershed Manage. Unit., For. WM 90.
• Borod, R. S. 1968. Tax exemption: lobbying for conservation. New Republic 159(23): 14-16.
• Boyce, A. T. 1967. Results of the Cropland Adjustment Program's first year in Michigan. 32nd N. Amer. Wildl. & Natur. Resour. Conf. p.96-102.
• Busby, C. E. 1955. Regulations and economic expansion, p.666-676. In Water. Yearbook of Agriculture. U.S. Department of Agriculture. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
• Chrest, H. R. 1964. Review of literature of the bald eagle. Colorado State University Library. 121 p . (Unpub. Ms.)
• Clement, R. C. 1965. Last call for birds of prey. Audubon Mag. 67(1): 37.
• Crews, J. F., and R. Bird. 1963. Reducing liability risks in farm recreation enterprises. Univ. Missouri Agr. Exp. Sta. and USDA Res. Devel. Econ. Div. B-801.
• Denman, K. G. 1957. Water rights as related to fish and game. Western Ass. State Fish & Game Comm., 37th Ann. Conf. Proc. p.134-138.
• Dimmick, R. W., and W. D. Klimstra. 1964. Controlled duck hunting in Illinois. J. Wildl. Manage. 28(4): 676-688.
• Galbreath, D. S. 1965. Hunting access programs summary. Washington Game Dep., Upland Game Bird Program. p.24-29.
• Gearhart, D. 1957. “Frontiers” formed to help solve old hunter-owner feud. N.M. Wildl. 2(12): 7.
• Gilbert, D. L. 1965. Public relations in natural resources management. Burgess Publ. Co., Minneapolis. 180 p.
• Gordon, S. 1958. Water problems and California wildlife. Western Ass. State Game & Fish Comm., 38th Ann. Conf. Proc. p.24-28.
• Harding, T. S. 1960. Water in California. N-P Publ., Palo Alto. 231 p.
• Hay, H. 1960. An evaluation of Colorado's access problems. 25th N. Amer. Wildl. Conf. p.364-377.
• Hunter, G. N. 1957. The techniques used in Colorado to obtain hunter distribution. 22nd N. Amer. Wildl. Conf. Trans. p.589-593.
• Hunter, W. A. 1953. Landowner-sportsman relations. Western Ass. State Game & Fish Comm., 33rd Ann. Conf. Proc. p.265-269.
• Johnson, K. L. 1965. Analysis of state regulations of surface water development and use in Colorado. Colorado State University. Ph.D. thesis.
• Johnson, L. W. 1943. Hunter distribution: studies and methods. 8th N. Amer. Wildl. Conf. Trans. p.392-407.
• Johnson, W. 1967. Operation respect. Colorado Outdoors 16(2): 22-27.
• Kelsey, G. L. 1964. Liability risks for hunter-hosts. S.D. State Univ., Coop. Ext. Ser. FS-241.
• Kozicky, E. L. 1960. Access to private lands. Internat. Ass. Game, Fish & Conserv. Comm., 50th Conv. Proc. p.18-23.
• Krausz, N. G. P., and L. G. Lemon. 1964. Laws and regulations concerning recreation in rural areas of Illinois. Univ. Illinois, Coll. Agr., C-889.
• Laun, H. C. 1963. It's time for mutiny on the bounties. Audubon Mag. 65(3): 146-149.
• Leedy, C. D. 1966. Liability protection for outdoor recreation enterprises. N.M. State Univ., Coop. Ext. Serv. Circ. 385.
• Leopold, A. 1930. The American game policy in a nutshell. 17th N. Amer. Game Conf. Trans. p.281-283.
• Leopold, A. 1933. Game management. Charles Scribner's Sons, New York. 481 p.
• Leopold, A. 1940. History of the Riley game cooperative, 1931-39. J. Wildl. Manage. 4(3): 291-301.
• Lynch, R. G. 1959. Our growing water problems. National Wildlife Federation, Washington, D.C. 60 p.
• Magnuson, W. G. 1965. a. Treaties and other international agreements containing provisions on commercial fisheries, marine resources, sport fisheries, and wildlife to which the United States is party. 89th Cong., 1st Sess., U.S. Senate, Committee on Commerce. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 410 p.
• Magnuson, W. G. 1965. b. Compilation of federal laws relating to the conservation and development of our nation's fish and wildlife resources. 89th Cong., 1st Sess., U.S. Senate, Committee on Commerce. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 472 p.
• Oregon State Game Commission. 1967. Cougar Bull., Nov.-Dec. 8 p.
• Patterson, R. W. 1967. The art of the impossible. Amer. Acad. Arts and Sci. Proc. 94(4): 1020-1033.
• Rutherford, R. 1949. 10 years of Pittman-Robertson wildlife restoration. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 14 p.
• Rutherford, R. 1953. 5 years of Pittman-Robertson wildlife restoration, 1949-53. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 14 p.
• Scott, W. E. 1948. Methods of controlled public hunting in the United States and Canada. J. Wildl. Manage. 12(3): 236-240.
• Sigler, W. F. 1956. Wildlife law enforcement. Wm. Brown Publ., Dubuque, Iowa.
• Sprunt, A., Jr. 1963. Bald eagles aren't producing enough young. Audubon Mag. 65(1): 32-35.
• Stuewer, F. W. 1953. How good is the Williamston plan? Mich. Conserv. 22(5): 23-26.
• Swanson, G. A., J. T. Shields, W. H. Olson, et al. 1969. Fish and wildlife resources on the public lands. A report prepared for the Public Land Law Review Commission by Colorado State University; available from Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, Va.
• Teague, R. 1966. Recreation potential on farmlands. Internat. Ass. Game, Fish, & Conserv. Comm., 56th Conv. Proc. p.128-133.
• University of Michigan. 1955. Water resources and the law. U. Mich. Law Sch., Ann Arbor. 614 p.
• U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1965. Cropland Adjustment Program for 1966 through 1969. Washington, D.C. 13 p.
• Voigt, W. 1958. Water policy problems, east and west. Western Ass. State Game & Fish Comm., 38th Ann. Conf. Proc. p.5-23.
• Whitesell, D. 1952. Analysis of farmer-hunter relationships. 17th N. Amer. Wildl. Conf. Trans. p.533-539.
• Whitney, A. H. 1964. Montana's first year with a stream preservation act. Western Ass. State Game & Fish Comm., 44th Annu. Conf. p.229-231.
• Williams, M. B. 1950. Water law in the United States of America. United Nations Food & Agriculture Organization, Geneva. 161 p.